David Badash

The head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division says she has ordered an investigation into the firing of a local school bus driver who posted an “English-only” sign, alleging the situation implicates “DEI wokeness.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, in announcing the investigation, called the firing “deeply concerning.”

Pennsylvania’s CBS 21 News reported that “Diane Crawford, 66, said she never thought writing a note would cost her so much.”

The note read: “Out of respect to English-only students, there will be no speaking Spanish on this bus.”

“I didn’t mean to be racially insensitive or anything like that,” Crawford said. “Maybe I should have worded it (differently). Maybe it should have said, ‘No bullying in any language,’ but I didn’t mean it to be anything but to correct him.”

CBS 21 reported that “Crawford claimed she never got to explain that the sign was put up to encourage safe and respectful behavior and that it was directed at a bilingual student who allegedly had a history of riling up other students in Spanish.”

She also alleged that she was fired overnight, but the local school district and bus contractor in a joint statement said they “jointly reviewed the situation in accordance with established procedures. The investigation concluded after the subcontractor provided a written admission confirming that the signage had been installed on her bus. At that point, the relevant facts of the situation were fully known and discussed among District and Rohrer leadership.”

Civil rights litigator Patrick Jaicomo in a social media post directed toward Assistant Attorney General Dhillon asked: “Can you lay out the possible legal basis for your concerns?”

“I’d also be interested to hear whether you think someone acting under color of state law can prohibit the speaking of Spanish,” he wrote. “That seems like it would violate the 1st [and] 14th Amendments, no?”

Jaicomo added, “If I wanted to enforce civil rights, I’d investigate a school bus driver’s violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments under color of state law. If I wanted to score cheap political points, I’d investigate ‘DEI wokeness.’ Then again, there’s a reason I don’t work for the gov’t.”

President Donald Trump has not abandoned his efforts to acquire Greenland — indeed, he is pressing ahead. On Sunday night, the president named Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry, a Trump ally, as a special envoy to the autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a decision that angered both Greenlanders and Danes.

“Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World,” President Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Landry quickly responded: “It’s an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S. This in no way affects my position as Governor of Louisiana!”

Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, blasted the move.

“I’m deeply upset about the appointment and the statement, which I find completely unacceptable,” Løkke Rasmussen told Danish media TV2, as CNBC reported.

Trump, CNBC noted, “has refused to rule out the use of force” to acquire Greenland, whose “leaders have criticized the U.S. administration’s calls for the country to become a U.S. territory.”

The New York Times likened the appointment of a special envoy to the situations in Ukraine and the Middle East, at least in one respect — in each case, the president “tapped someone close to him to manage all of these as priorities.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul called the appointment of a special envoy “outrageous.”

“Imagine,” he wrote, “if Mexico appointed a special envoy to make Louisiana a part of Mexico? Our ally Denmark deserves more respect than this.”

Valerie Morkevičius, an associate professor of political science, charged that Governor Landry is proclaiming “his support for violating an ally’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

She noted: “US foreign policy these days operates at the corner of shame and shambolic.”

The Times reported that “the appointment drew condemnation from Greenland and further deteriorated the relationship between the United States and Denmark, which used to be close allies.”

“You cannot annex other countries,” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark and Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen of Greenland said in a joint statement on Monday. “Not even by invoking international security. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and the United States must not take over Greenland.”

Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, called Landry’s appointment a “significant escalation.”

Moderate House Republicans concerned about re-election next year have been pushing for a vote to extend the Obamacare premium subsidies, but Speaker Mike Johnson is strongly opposed. House Democrats need only four Republicans to cross the aisle and sign their discharge petition, which would force a vote on the House floor — and Democrats may get exactly what they want.

That’s according to Punchbowl News and its co-founder, Jake Sherman.

“This week,” Sherman wrote, “was designed to give House Republicans a way to push back on Democratic attacks that they’re indifferent to skyrocketing health care costs hitting millions of Americans. Instead, the House GOP leadership has facilitated an untimely — and particularly nasty — intraparty brawl, pitting moderates against Republican Party leaders and further strengthening Democrats’ political hand as the Obamacare cliff looms.”

Speaker Johnson is “pushing” moderate Republicans “into the arms of Democrats,” Sherman added, “as the House Republican leadership refuses to allow the centrists a vote on extending the enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies.”

One moderate Republican, Sherman also reported, U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) “stood up in a House Republican Conference meeting and said that not having an up-or-down vote on extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies is malpractice.”

He also reported that many moderate Republicans “share this sentiment.”

“They feel like they have to have a vote and the conference won’t give it to them. Driving them into the arms of democrats.”

Sherman explained that by refusing to allow the vote, Republicans have delivered a “political advantage” to the Democrats. If just four House Republicans sign Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ discharge petition, “Democrats have exacted the precise policy win they’ve been seeking, even if that never becomes law.”

There has been a “massive shift” in the party Americans trust more on inflation, one of the top issues in the country.

CNN forecaster Harry Enten revealed on Monday that a strong majority of Americans now believe that when it comes to fighting inflation, the country is on the wrong track: 56%, up from 36% when President Donald Trump took office.

“Donald Trump was elected to solve the economic crisis, to solve the pricing crisis,” Enten told viewers. “But at this particular point, these numbers are going in the complete wrong direction.”

“You go back to January, these numbers were pretty split, right? 43% said wrong track, 36% said right track, right when Donald Trump came in office. But look at that. That wrong track number has skyrocketed up to 56%.”

He added that the share of Americans who believe the country is on the right track when it comes to inflation is now just 29%.

“The bottom line is this,” Enten continued. “Donald Trump is trying to spin a narrative, and the American people aren’t buying the spin that is coming out of the White House.”

Noting that Americans’ “number one” concern is inflation, by a strong margin, Enten put that number at 44% of the country.

“It’s inflation, overwhelmingly, driving this economic pessimism, and I will tell you this, until the economy, until the American people think that inflation is under control, they will continue to have pessimistic feelings about the economy, because inflation is numero uno by a wide, wide margin in driving the second economic pessimism.”

When it comes to which party Americans now trust more on fixing inflation, Lenten noted that three years ago it was the GOP by a 14-point margin.

That’s now flipped.

“Now, Democrats are trusted more by four points, so it’s not just the president that the American people are turning on when it comes to inflation,” he noted. “It is, in fact, the Republican Party as well — a massive shift to the left towards the Democratic Party.”

Enten also pointed to the prediction markets, which, he said, show that 80% do not see inflation getting better soon.

“The bottom line is this,” Enten concluded, “there is no relief in sight.”

A top FBI official struggled to explain his claim that Antifa is the “most immediate violent threat” America is facing, as he was challenged to provide details.

Former Trump FBI Director Christopher Wray stated in 2020 congressional testimony that Antifa is “not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.” The BBC has explained that Antifa is “a loosely organized, leftist movement that opposes far-right, racist and fascist groups.”

“Antifa is short for anti-fascist,” the BBC added. “It is a loose, leaderless affiliation of mostly far-left activists.”

House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson on Thursday asked Michael Glasheen, FBI national security operations director, to describe “organizations that pose, on the domestic side,” the number one and number two threats to the homeland.

Glasheen asked for clarification.

“Any domestic terrorist organizations that poses a threat to the homeland as we speak,” Thompson replied.

Pointing to President Donald Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, Glasheen said, “That’s our primary concern right now.”

He described Antifa as “the most immediate violent threat that we’re facing on the domestic side.”

“So, where is the Antifa headquartered?” Thompson pressed.

After a pause, Glasheen said: “What we’re doing right now —” before Thompson cut him off.

“Where, in the United States, does Antifa exist?” he asked. “If it’s a terrorist organization — and you’ve identified it as number one.”

“We are building out the infrastructure right now,” Glasheen responded.

“So what does that mean?” Thompson pressed. “Where do they exist? How many members do they have in the United States as of right now?”

“Well, that’s very fluid,” Glasheen said, describing it as “ongoing,” before comparing the situation to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

“I asked one question, sir,” Thompson replied. “I just want you to tell us. If you said Antifa is the number one domestic terrorist organization, operating in the United States, I just need to know where they are, how many people. I don’t want a name. I don’t want anything like that. Just, how many people have you identified with the FBI, that Antifa is made of?”

“Well, the investigations are active,” Glasheen replied.

“Sir, you wouldn’t come to this committee and say something you can’t prove. I know. I knew you wouldn’t do that. But you did.”

The Atlantic’s David Frum sat down with Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center at New York University, to discuss how President Donald Trump and his administration might try to undermine the 2026 midterm elections, and what is in place that could prevent them from succeeding.

“What can a president and a party that is still in control of Congress do to bend things their way?” Frum asked.

“Well,” Waldman replied, “there is much they can do to try to undermine the way the system works, but there are limits as well.”

“I want to stress that,” he added, “in each of these areas, there are things that can be attempted, and there are potentially effective pushbacks that can make sure that the election actually does happen, as we would hope it happens, where the voters, however they choose, get the last word.”

But Waldman also warned Frum that “for the first time, I think, in American history, the federal government and the Trump administration are actively waging an effort to undermine the 2026 elections.”

“One thing that President Trump has tried to do already,” Waldman noted, “is to take personal control of the election system.”

Frum and Waldman discussed several activities Trump and his administration have tried, could try, or are trying, including issuing an executive order requiring passports as ID to vote, which the courts blocked. Similar legislation, requiring a passport or birth certificate to vote, passed the House but stalled in the Senate (the SAVE Act).

There is also the purging of federal election security experts, the weaponization of law enforcement, the use of federal agents — including, for instance, ICE and CBP near polling locations — and the use of the courts.

“When Congress blocked the SAVE Act,” Waldman noted, “the president put out another, rather, another post on social media saying, ‘I’m going to do an executive order ending vote by mail.'” Paraphrasing the president, he suggested that Trump claimed, “I’m gonna do this, and, by the way, the state election officials are merely agents who work for the president, and their job is merely to count the votes as agents for the president.”

“They are threatening to use the tools of law enforcement to scare off people in the election machinery,” Waldman explained.

Frum warned that National Guard troops, for example, operating near polling locations, could “detain” people for a few hours, “at least until after the polls close.”

“Those are known as ‘Kavanaugh stops,'” Waldman interjected, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court justice.

There is also the use of gerrymandering and the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will further gut the Voting Rights Act, they noted.

On gerrymandering, Waldman explained, “sometimes, if the voters have what’s called a wave election, where people are all rushing to the polls to vote, you know, their opposition to the current party in power, it can actually not only not have the desired impact, it can actually create more victories for the other party. That is, in technical terms, called a ‘dummymander.'”

Waldman noted that the Trump administration may be trying many different things to sow doubt about free and fair elections.

He said, “ultimately … they are trying to stir doubt, and create a cloud of suspicion, to make it easier, should there be, you know, the opportunity to push election officials and others to cave.”

About 200 former attorneys and staff from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are warning of the “near destruction of DOJ’s once-revered crown jewel,” and what they call Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “demand” for “loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

“For decades, the non-partisan work of the Civil Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has protected all Americans—especially the most vulnerable—from unfair treatment and unequal opportunities,” they write in a letter dated Tuesday. They added that “after witnessing this Administration destroy much of our work, we made the heartbreaking decision to leave—along with hundreds of colleagues, including about 75 percent of attorneys.”

Bloomberg Law reported on Tuesday that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will now focus only on “intentional discrimination,” and not “policies that may appear neutral but disproportionately affect racial minorities and other protected classes.”

In their letter, the former attorneys and staff specifically state that they left the Civil Rights Division “because this Administration turned the Division’s core mission upside down, largely abandoning its duty to protect civil rights,” and that it “achieved this goal by discarding much of the Division’s most impactful work.”

The group blasted Attorney General Bondi, who, they said, “issued a series of memos that subverted the Division’s mission in favor of President Trump’s political agenda.”

“One stood out: it insinuated that DOJ attorneys were Trump’s personal lawyers, an assertion that struck at the heart of the agency’s independence. Bondi’s demand to us was obvious: loyalty to the President, not the Constitution or the American people.”

In another scathing section, they charged that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon “focused her efforts on ‘driving [the Civil Rights Division] in the opposite direction’ of its longstanding purpose.”

They allege she issued mission statements “that included fighting diversity initiatives instead of race-based discrimination, investigating baseless allegations of voter fraud rather than protecting the right to vote, and dropping any mention of the Fair Housing Act, a landmark 1968 law that protects Americans from landlords’ racial discrimination and sexual harassment.”

And they charge that the administration “demanded that we find facts to fit the Administration’s predetermined outcomes.”

“Having no use for the expertise of career staff, the Administration launched a coordinated effort to drive us out,” they wrote. “The campaign to purge staff culminated in Dhillon encouraging everyone to resign after a period of paid leave while threatening layoffs if enough staff did not accept.”

Christine Stoneman, one of the letter’s signatories, told Bloomberg Law, “It is a sad commentary that in this anniversary of the Civil Rights Division, the Trump administration has chosen to eliminate a regulation that, for nearly 60 years has helped root out illegal race and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal funds.”

On Sunday, President Donald Trump declared that he will “be involved” in the federal government’s decision on whether to allow the streaming service Netflix to buy mass media and entertainment conglomerate Warner Bros. Discovery. On Monday, Paramount Skydance, another mass media and entertainment conglomerate, announced a hostile takeover bid for WBD, with news soon following that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm is part of the Paramount offer.

“Paramount is telling WBD shareholders that it has a smoother path to regulatory approval than does Netflix, and Kushner’s involvement only strengthens that case,” Axios reported. “Paramount is led by David Ellison, whose billionaire father Larry is a major supporter of President Trump.”

Axios added that Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, “was not mentioned in Paramount’s press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid, nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.”

Fortune reported that “Affinity and the other outside financing partners have agreed to forgo any governance rights, which Paramount said means the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would have no jurisdiction over the transaction.”

But Axios’ Sarah Fischer wrote on social media: “Ask yourself, why would anyone want to put money into an investment of this caliber and have no governance rights or board seats?”

“Essentially,” she added, “people want to have control/access/political power behind the scenes.”

“Reality is,” Fischer explained, this hostile takeover is a good explanation “of how capitalism/democracy can be exploited for political gain,” with “Paramount essentially betting our open system incentivizes shareholders to take [the] best financial deal even if it means giving soft power” to three sovereign wealth funds, the President, and his son-in-law.

Critics are blasting Kushner’s and Trump’s involvement.

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) remarked, “Donald Trump said he’ll ‘be involved in’ deciding if Netflix can buy Warner Bros. Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals? It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts.”

Award-winning journalist Sophia A. Nelson, responding to Trump’s remarks, observed: “This is ridiculous. Corrupt. And NOT what a President gets involved in.”

Professor, investor, and marketing executive Adam Cochran wrote: “Trump is talking about him personally being involved in deciding the fate of the Netflix-Warner Brothers deal, and how it’s ‘bad.’ Meanwhile his son-in-law is financing the competing offer. There has truly never been a more corrupt administration in US history!”

Alexander Vindman, former Director of European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC), wrote: “F– NO to another corrupt Trump deal. Nepobaby, Jared’s, involvement would deliver CNN to MAGA.”

NewsNation’s Kurt Bardella, a communications advisor and media relations consultant, asked: “Alexa, what is a ‘conflict-of-interest’?”

Months ago, when President Donald Trump urged Texas to redraw its congressional maps in a manner that — he said — would hand Republicans an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, he launched what has become a sweeping mid-decade redistricting push spanning more than a dozen red and blue states.

Trump has pressed additional GOP-led states to join Texas in mid-decennial redistricting — a rare exercise given that congressional districts, per the U.S. Constitution, are reapportioned based on each decade’s census. But now, some Republicans are expressing anxiety over this all-out effort.

“Worried Republicans say basing redistricting on the 2024 election is a sizable leap,” The Washington Post reported, “both because Trump’s coalition has not shown a willingness to show up when he isn’t on the ballot and polls show Trump is hemorrhaging support from key groups in his unique coalition.”

Republican operative Annalyse Keller told Meet the Press Now, “I am not confident that that Trump coalition in a midterm election is going to stay with Republicans.”

“There might be a chance that some of this backfires,” Keller added.

Trump’s poll numbers are at their lowest of his second term, and Democrats in some races have shown they are outperforming 2024 election numbers. The electorate is changing, and some groups that moved over to Trump in 2024 have already begun backing away in 2025.

“At the heart of these concerns are Latino voters, who are central to the Texas redistricting plan and were expected to be key to whatever Republicans decide to do in Florida,” the Post reported. “Trump made inroads with Latino voters in 2024, especially with Latino men, which helped propel him to victory in key battleground states. But Trump’s standing with Latino voters has fallen off a cliff in recent months.”

The Post cited a November Pew Research Center survey that “found 70 percent of Latinos ‘disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president,’ and 61 percent said ‘Trump’s economic policies have made economic conditions worse,’ a notable finding because the economy was a primary reason 43 percent of Latino voters backed Trump in 2024.”

Pollster and former advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign, Matt A. Barreto, told the Post: “So if someone is redistricting and they are trying to draw Republican performances based on Trump-Harris characteristics, they are going to be wrong in 2026, because 2025 has already shown us this.”

Redrawing congressional maps in an effort to pick up GOP seats can make solid Republican districts more competitive.

Indeed, the Post reported that “Republicans are moving Republican support from GOP-friendly districts to make these new districts lean more toward the GOP, effectively making former stronghold districts more competitive — the opposite, say these Republicans, of what a party should do ahead of an election that is expected to go against them.”